Patna High CourtCR. REV./40/2015dismissed

Dilip Rai @ Dilip Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-02-28Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.40 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Dilip Rai @ Dilip Kumar Rai S/o Sri Janardan Rai, Resident of MohallaTingchhia, Bhorabari, P.S.- Katihar (Town), District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Bhawna Kumari, D/o Jai Prakash Mandal, Resident of Mohalla- Hajiganj, C/o State Bank of Bikner and Jaipur, P.S.- Chowk (Patna City), DistrictPatna at present residing at Mohalla- Buddha Colony, P.S.- .................., District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Renu Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-02-2017 I. A. No. 95 of 2015 This application has been filed by the petitioner, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of about two months in preferring the present criminal revision application, against the order, dated 25.07.2014, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, in Maintenance Case No. 197(M) of 2012. Having considered the reasons assigned in the present petition seeking condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient causes from preferring the application within time. In view of the above, the delay, in preferring the present criminal revision application, is hereby

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.40 of 2015 (3) dt.28-02-2017 2/2 condoned.

I.A. No. 95 of 2015 stands allowed.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 40 OF 2015 By the impugned order, dated 25.07.2014, passed in Maintenance Case No. 197(M) of 2012, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, has allowance maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, who is wife of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of their minor son, in exercise of power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Before quantifying the amount of maintenance, leaned Court below has recorded the earnings of the petitioner from his job of Medical Representative and rental, which he receives from the house.

I do not find any necessity to interfere with the order impugned.

This application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √